Hello, Black Kite,

Editor Konli17 has been brought to the edit warring noticeboard 5 or 6 times now by different editors in the past two weeks and no action has been taken in any of the complaints and they just get archived. One editor came to my talk page bringing my attention to his behavior but I don't patrol ANEW and am not up-to-date at the standards of judgment and typical sanctions on that noticeboard. When I looked at his contribution history, it seems that while he might be disruptive to other editors, he hasn't breeched the 3 revert bright line in the time period I examined.

I guess I'm coming to you because Ed isn't closing these complaints and you commented upon one of them. I'm not sure why the previous complaints are going without a resolution unless this subject area is just a minefield with multiple bad actors. Any chance you could look over any of the four complaints currently on the board? By the way, I have asked Konli17 to please come to ANEW to address the complaints but he avoids discussions, probably because he is outnumbered on many of these articles. Thanks for any closure you could bring to this conflict. Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  • @Liz: Hi. I think the issue here runs deeper than just Konli17, as you suggest with your "outnumbered" comment. Other editors involved in the article area have also been brought to dramaboards before, i.e. Beshogur at AE. I am wondering if we need some sort of ability to enforce arbitration remedies on these editors and articles? Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Black Kite, the main problem is that admins are not looking at what certain editors are adding to the articles, Konli17 has repeatedly added straight false maps he has made in MS Paint, they have no reliable sources whatsoever, I have tried to talk to him repeatedly at the talkpage but he doesn't listen, just continues to edit war his made up maps into the articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Supreme Deliciousness: Hi - can you give me a range of diffs for those please so I can investigate? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Black Kite:, The two fake maps: [1][2], He has edit warred them into the article in these diffs, together with other pov changes: He started doing this on august 7 removing two documented historical maps and adding his fake maps:[3], and then it continued: [4][5][6][7]"(Introduce changes agreed on talk"[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]....we have tried discussing with him [17][18][19][20][21], in this discussion:[22] I point out to him: "The fake "Irredentist Kurdish nationalist" map is not even following the unreliable source you added, the unreliable source extends the Kurdish-occupied region to the Mediterranean Sea, while your fake MS Paint map does not."...his reply? Just continue to edit war the fake map into the article. There is no end to this, your lock of the article will not change anything. As is clear he doesn't care about reliable sources, he doesn't care if his maps doesn't even follow the sources, he just continues to forcibly edit war his agenda into the article. And as can be seen in the diffs, the maps is only one part of the problem. There is large disputes about the texts aswell. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustansEdit

Hi BK. Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans, but I disagree with your close. Specifically:

  1. There is around a 60/40 numerical majority in favour of deleting this article, but there are clearly issues as to the rationales for doing so. The most common rationale appears to be WP:POVFORK, but as pointed out in numerous places, there appears to be no agreement about which article it is actually a POVFORK of - indeed, I see at least six separate articles mentioned in Delete rationales. The large number of articles proposed suggest that this is actually an article that covers information from all of those articles, rather than forking material from just one. - This read to me like a !vote, not a summary of consensus. Why do the delete !voters need to agree on which article is a POVFORK of in order for their !vote to be given full weight? I don't see anything in PAGs that suggests this. If three editors think an article is a POVFORK of three different articles and they don't agree which one, that's still consensus that it's a POVFORK. All three editors agree that the article shouldn't exist; they don't need to agree about why. The idea that "The large number of articles proposed suggest that this is actually an article that covers information from all of those articles, rather than forking material from just one." is your opinion--literally arguing against a delete rationale--it is not the opinion of most of the participants in the discussion. (It is not my opinion.) What basis is there for suggesting that a POVFORK must be a POVFORK of one article and cannot be a POVFORK of multiple articles? What basis is there for suggesting that POVFORK-based delete !votes should be discounted unless they agree on which article it's a POVFORK of?
  2. Furthermore, numerous Delete comments make no mention of which article it is a POVFORK of, which makes them less useful ... - If Editor A !votes "POVFORK of Foo and Bar", and Editor B !votes "POVFORK per Editor A", Editor B's !vote should not be discounted simply because Editor B failed to say "Foo and Bar". "Per others" is a valid !vote. There were plenty of specific articles put forward for the POVFORK argument (which you yourself acknowledge with ... it would normally be logical only to post a note on the talk pages of the articles which were claimed to have been forked from (although I appreciate that in this case that would have been a significant number of articles)). I don't think "failed to specify which article" is a valid reason to discount a !vote, where many other !voters specified articles, and I'm not aware of anything in PAGs or precedent supporting this view.
  3. ... others appear to be invoking NPOV as a delete rationale, which it is not. That's exactly what POVFORK is: an NPOV-based deletion rationale. With all due respect, I think this statement is flat wrong.

I submit 60/40 in favor of deletion with no valid reasons to discount delete !votes = consensus to delete. Lev¡vich 19:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • No, general previous consensus is that NPOV on its own is not a reason for deletion unless the article is so obviously biased that it is beyond rescue (i.e. an article entitled Why Americans are stupid clearly isn't happening even if we could find RS saying that Americans were more poorly educated than other Western countries). A POVFORK is quite a different kettle of fish, and is a reason for deletion if an article is unequivocally one. But a POVFORK is quite a simple thing to establish, and as many of the Keep voters noted it is difficult to say that an article is a POVFORK if editors are suggesting it is a fork of one or more of half a dozen articles. Given that this is unclear at best, and given that POVFORK was given as the overriding deletion rationale by most in favour, I could not see a logical way to finding a policy-based consensus of "Delete" here. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Didn't most !voters agree that the article is so obviously biased that it is beyond rescue, and that is why they !voted delete? Where in WP:POVFORK does it say it is difficult to say that an article is a POVFORK if editors are suggesting it is a fork of one or more of half a dozen articles? Why couldn't an article be a POVFORK of multiple articles? Lev¡vich 23:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, but a significant number also said that it was not. As was pointed out in the AfD, the POVFORK argument is weakened by the fact that a number of the articles invoked as being the source of the POVFORK were covering very different areas, even if they were all linked to the subject of this one. Effectively, the Keep comments were saying that if people were agreeing that "look, this is simply an NPOV version of article X", then that is one thing; but if it is apparently a POVFORK of many multiple articles, then laying aside the NPOV issues for a moment it is not unreasonable for them to argue that the article is filling a gap in the coverage and not duplicating content. Black Kite (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Of course there would be overlap. It is plausible that an article would be a WP:POVFORK to circumvent consensus in multiple articles, not just one. You are completely focused on picking holes in the "Delete" arguments, focusing on this apparent indecision about which article it was a POVFORK of, but the fact is almost all of the content could be subsumed under Israel and the apartheid analogy and Israeli Occupation of the West Bank. WP:POVFORK is not a "you only get to pick one" proposition. And by the way, the Keep arguments were mostly cursory and fall back on "it's well sourced" or "it meets GNG." None of this is a justification for establishing a spinoff article. And lastly, the widespread perception that the article is irredeemably biased is a sign that the article is in fact a POV FORK. I find the reasoning behind this incredibly questionable, and I would like to see this closure challenged. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite, I was the original nom for that AfD and was also quite shocked to see this outcome. My reading of the discussion was that most uninvolved editors were in favour of deletion and a number of related but strong reasons for this were given, yet almost all of these points/!votes were immediately challenged or mischaracterised by a group of 3/4 very vocal regular editors from within the Palestine/Israel topic area, who lobbied hard for its retention and often repeated their arguments. I'll readily admit that I'm no expert on the ins and outs of deletion policy, and it may be the case that my assessment is coloured by a personal judgement that the article is clearly unacceptable, but as I saw Levivich had left you a message I thought I'd also chime in. Regardless, I appreciate that closing an AfD like this would not be easy and do appreciate you doing so. Jr8825Talk 22:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi - I tend not to determine people's rationale by their viewpoints on the subject concerned, even if I know they have a particular standpoint on a subject, but I did note that were approximately an equal number of the "usual" Israel/Palestine editors from each "side" weighing in on this AfD, so I didn't take that as a weighting factor. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)